W.P.(C) 3329/2019 Page 1 of 6 $~20 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010167832019 + W.P.(C) 3329/2019 PRAVEEN CHAUDHARY .....Petitioner Through: Dr. Ranjit Singh, Advocate. versus THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR IRCON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Suman K. Doval and Mr. Lakshay Chaudhary, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 14.09.2026 1. The Petitioner applied for the post of Manager (Civil) in the Scheduled Caste category pursuant to Advertisement No. 02/2018 issued by IRCON International Limited [“IRCON”]. Eighteen posts were advertised, of which two were reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates. The selection involved a written examination followed by an interview. 2. The Petitioner secured 53 marks in the written examination held on 17th August, 2018 and qualified for the interview. He was the only candidate from the Scheduled Caste category to do so. He appeared before the Selection Committee on 29th October, 2018, after verification of his documents. His name, however, did not figure in the result declared on 12th November, 2018. Against the Scheduled Caste category, the result stated: “None qualified.” 3. The reason became clear when the Petitioner sought information This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/09/2026 at 12:12:06 W.P.(C) 3329/2019 Page 2 of 6 under the Right to Information Act, 2005. IRCON informed him that the interview carried 100 marks, that a Scheduled Caste candidate was required to secure at least 50 marks, and that the Petitioner had obtained 45. The response added that the minimum had been fixed under IRCON’s Recruitment Rules. 4. The Petitioner questions his exclusion principally on the ground that the advertisement did not disclose either the minimum qualifying marks for the interview or the weightage assigned to the written examination and interview. He argues that an undisclosed benchmark could not have been used to eliminate him after he had participated in the recruitment. He relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh,1 and the subsequent Constitution Bench decision in Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court,2 to contend that a minimum qualifying benchmark for the interview cannot be introduced or applied without being stipulated before the relevant stage of the selection process. He submits that application of the undisclosed benchmark of 50% qualifying marks in the interview, therefore, amounted to an impermissible alteration of the selection criteria 5. IRCON, on the other hand, contends that there was no alteration of the selection criteria. The recruitment process was governed by the IRCON Recruitment Rules, 2014 [“2014 Rules”], which had been in force since 1st February, 2014. Rule 8.3.2.8.2 of the 2014 Rules prescribed separate qualifying marks for the written examination and the interview, requiring candidates belonging to the Scheduled Caste and Other Backward Classes 1 (2008) 3 SCC 512. 2 2024 INSC 847. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/09/2026 at 12:12:06 W.P.(C) 3329/2019 Page 3 of 6 categories to secure a minimum of 50 per cent in each. Since the Petitioner secured only 45 marks in the interview, IRCON contends that he failed to meet the prescribed qualifying standard and was consequently not selected 6. The controversy turns on a settled distinction. A qualifying benchmark cannot ordinarily be introduced after the recruitment process has commenced. A benchmark already prescribed by the governing rules, however, does not become a new criterion merely because it is not reproduced in the advertisement. The question, therefore, is whether the requirement of securing 50 per cent marks in the interview formed part of the 2014 Rules when the recruitment process commenced. 7. The 2014 Rules leave little room for ambiguity in this regard. Rule 8.3.2.6 contemplates selection through a written test, interview and/or skill/trade test, depending upon the requirements of the post, with the mode of selection to be determined by the Chairman and Managing Director. In the present case, where experience was prescribed for the post of Manager (Civil) and the selection comprised both a written test and an interview, Rule 8.3.2.8.2 specifically governed the selection process. It reads as follows: “8.3.2.8.2 Where selection is to be made on the basis of both written test and interview (where experience is prescribed) (i) Written Test (weightage): 50% (ii) Interview (weightage): 50% (A) Qualifications: 10% (B) Experience: 10% (C) Technical and Professional Proficiency: 50% (D) Personality, Communication and Competencies: 30% (iii) Qualifying Marks (%) for WT and Interview separately: (a) For Gen: 60% (b) For SC and OBC: 50% (c) For ST: 45% ... This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/09/2026 at 12:12:06 W.P.(C) 3329/2019 Page 4 of 6 (ii) However, final selection shall be made on the basis of merit only.” 8. Under Rule 8.3.2.8.2, the minimum qualifying marks for Scheduled Caste candidates were fixed at 50 per cent in the written examination and the interview, separately. Thus, qualification in one component could not compensate for a failure to secure the prescribed minimum in the other. 9. The Petitioner secured 53 marks in the written examination and accordingly qualified for the interview. In the interview, however, he secured 45 marks, falling short of the prescribed minimum of 50 per cent. His exclusion from the selection process thus followed from the qualifying standard already prescribed under the 2014 Rules, and not from any criterion introduced during the course of the recruitment process. 10. The Petitioner is right about one thing: Advertisement No. 02/2018 could have been more informative. Under the heading “Selection Process”, it said only: “Written Exam and/or Interview.” 11. The advertisement did not disclose either the separate qualifying marks or the weightage assigned to the two stages. There is, however, nothing on record to suggest that IRCON was required to reproduce in the advertisement every criterion already prescribed by the 2014 Rules. At the same time, greater specificity, particularly as to the independently qualifying nature of the interview, would undoubtedly have enhanced transparency and perhaps avoided the present dispute. 12. The omission, however, does not affect the validity or application of the prescribed benchmark. The requirement of securing 50 per cent marks in the interview flowed from the 2014 Rules and applied uniformly to candidates belonging to the Scheduled Caste category. The omission thus This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/09/2026 at 12:12:06 W.P.(C) 3329/2019 Page 5 of 6 concerns the manner in which the selection process was communicated, rather than the criteria governing it. 13. This distinction is central to the decisions on which the Petitioner relies. In K. Manjusree, minimum qualifying marks for the interview were introduced after the interviews had been completed. The selection had proceeded on the basis that no separate ‘minimum’ applied to the interview. The later introduction of such a ‘minimum’ displaced candidates who would otherwise have formed part of the merit list. The Supreme Court held that while an authority may prescribe minimum marks for an interview, it cannot do so after that stage of the selection is over. 14. The Constitution Bench in Tej Prakash Pathak affirmed K. Manjusree. It reiterated that eligibility criteria cannot be altered after the recruitment process has commenced. As regards the method of selection, it clarified that K. Manjusree does not prevent a recruiting body from prescribing benchmarks for different stages of selection. Where the extant rules or the advertisement permit benchmarks to be fixed at different stages, they must be fixed before the relevant stage is reached and remain subject to the requirements of Articles 14 and 16. 15. Those decisions, therefore, do not advance the Petitioner’s case. Unlike K. Manjusree, the qualifying marks here were not prescribed after the interview or in light of its outcome. They were already part of Rule 8.3.2.8.2 when the recruitment began. IRCON merely applied the existing Rule; it did not change the criteria of selection. 16. The fact that the Petitioner was the only Scheduled Caste candidate interviewed for two reserved vacancies does not alter the position. His candidature was required to be considered against those vacancies in This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/09/2026 at 12:12:06 W.P.(C) 3329/2019 Page 6 of 6 accordance with the standards prescribed for his category, which he was nevertheless required to satisfy. The existence of reserved vacancies did not dispense with the requirement of securing the prescribed qualifying marks. 17. The 2014 Rules themselves contemplate that a reserved vacancy may remain unfilled if a suitable Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe candidate is not available. Rule 11 provides for such vacancies to be carried forward for two recruitment cycles and, if suitable candidates remain unavailable, for dereservation in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The existence of an unfilled reserved vacancy therefore does not require IRCON to treat a candidate who failed the qualifying standard as successful. 18. The Petitioner has also contended in the rejoinder that IRCON did not disclose the marks awarded under the individual heads of the interview. That circumstance, by itself, does not cast doubt on the assessment made by the Selection Committee. There is no allegation of bias or mala fides, nor has any departure from the prescribed parameters or unequal application of the standards been demonstrated. In the absence of any such infirmity, there is no basis for the Court to re-evaluate the Petitioner’s performance in the interview. 19. In view of the above, no ground for interference is made out. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed as being devoid of merit. SANJEEV NARULA, J SEPTEMBER 14, 2026/as This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/09/2026 at 12:12:06